Exploring Changes to the Actionability of COVID-19 Dashboards Over the Course of 2020 in the Canadian Context: Descriptive Assessment and Expert Appraisal Study.
COVID-19
Canada
assessment
communication
dashboards
decision-making
development
dynamic
health information management
medical informatics
performance measures
public health
public reporting of health care data
qualitative research
surveillance
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 08 2021
06 08 2021
Historique:
received:
05
05
2021
accepted:
05
07
2021
revised:
11
06
2021
pubmed:
20
7
2021
medline:
30
9
2021
entrez:
19
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Public web-based COVID-19 dashboards are in use worldwide to communicate pandemic-related information. Actionability of dashboards, as a predictor of their potential use for data-driven decision-making, was assessed in a global study during the early stages of the pandemic. It revealed a widespread lack of features needed to support actionability. In view of the inherently dynamic nature of dashboards and their unprecedented speed of creation, the evolution of dashboards and changes to their actionability merit exploration. We aimed to explore how COVID-19 dashboards evolved in the Canadian context during 2020 and whether the presence of actionability features changed over time. We conducted a descriptive assessment of a pan-Canadian sample of COVID-19 dashboards (N=26), followed by an appraisal of changes to their actionability by a panel of expert scorers (N=8). Scorers assessed the dashboards at two points in time, July and November 2020, using an assessment tool informed by communication theory and health care performance intelligence. Applying the nominal group technique, scorers were grouped in panels of three, and evaluated the presence of the seven defined features of highly actionable dashboards at each time point. Improvements had been made to the dashboards over time. These predominantly involved data provision (specificity of geographic breakdowns, range of indicators reported, and explanations of data sources or calculations) and advancements enabled by the technologies employed (customization of time trends and interactive or visual chart elements). Further improvements in actionability were noted especially in features involving local-level data provision, time-trend reporting, and indicator management. No improvements were found in communicative elements (clarity of purpose and audience), while the use of storytelling techniques to narrate trends remained largely absent from the dashboards. Improvements to COVID-19 dashboards in the Canadian context during 2020 were seen mostly in data availability and dashboard technology. Further improving the actionability of dashboards for public reporting will require attention to both technical and organizational aspects of dashboard development. Such efforts would include better skill-mixing across disciplines, continued investment in data standards, and clearer mandates for their developers to ensure accountability and the development of purpose-driven dashboards.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Public web-based COVID-19 dashboards are in use worldwide to communicate pandemic-related information. Actionability of dashboards, as a predictor of their potential use for data-driven decision-making, was assessed in a global study during the early stages of the pandemic. It revealed a widespread lack of features needed to support actionability. In view of the inherently dynamic nature of dashboards and their unprecedented speed of creation, the evolution of dashboards and changes to their actionability merit exploration.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to explore how COVID-19 dashboards evolved in the Canadian context during 2020 and whether the presence of actionability features changed over time.
METHODS
We conducted a descriptive assessment of a pan-Canadian sample of COVID-19 dashboards (N=26), followed by an appraisal of changes to their actionability by a panel of expert scorers (N=8). Scorers assessed the dashboards at two points in time, July and November 2020, using an assessment tool informed by communication theory and health care performance intelligence. Applying the nominal group technique, scorers were grouped in panels of three, and evaluated the presence of the seven defined features of highly actionable dashboards at each time point.
RESULTS
Improvements had been made to the dashboards over time. These predominantly involved data provision (specificity of geographic breakdowns, range of indicators reported, and explanations of data sources or calculations) and advancements enabled by the technologies employed (customization of time trends and interactive or visual chart elements). Further improvements in actionability were noted especially in features involving local-level data provision, time-trend reporting, and indicator management. No improvements were found in communicative elements (clarity of purpose and audience), while the use of storytelling techniques to narrate trends remained largely absent from the dashboards.
CONCLUSIONS
Improvements to COVID-19 dashboards in the Canadian context during 2020 were seen mostly in data availability and dashboard technology. Further improving the actionability of dashboards for public reporting will require attention to both technical and organizational aspects of dashboard development. Such efforts would include better skill-mixing across disciplines, continued investment in data standards, and clearer mandates for their developers to ensure accountability and the development of purpose-driven dashboards.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34280120
pii: v23i8e30200
doi: 10.2196/30200
pmc: PMC8360335
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e30200Informations de copyright
©Erica Barbazza, Damir Ivanković, Sophie Wang, Kendall Jamieson Gilmore, Mircha Poldrugovac, Claire Willmington, Nicolas Larrain, Véronique Bos, Sara Allin, Niek Klazinga, Dionne Kringos. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.08.2021.
Références
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Dec;27(12):1000-1007
pubmed: 29950323
Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):i-iv, 1-88
pubmed: 9561895
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 19;19(6):e218
pubmed: 28630033
CMAJ. 2021 Jan 18;193(3):E99-E100
pubmed: 33462147
Annu Rev Public Health. 2003;24:413-33
pubmed: 12428034
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jan;99(1):36-43
pubmed: 26277826
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 May 7;:
pubmed: 33963072
Acta Inform Med. 2015 Oct;23(5):317-21
pubmed: 26635442
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Apr 07;34:100812
pubmed: 33898954
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Feb 24;23(2):e25682
pubmed: 33577467
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 16;368(20):1857-9
pubmed: 23593978
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020 Dec 23;6(4):e20343
pubmed: 33315582
Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Apr;64(2):169-90
pubmed: 17406019
Health Policy. 2009 Apr;90(1):94-103
pubmed: 18829129
Int J Qual Health Care. 2001 Dec;13(6):433-8
pubmed: 11769744
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
Can J Public Health. 2020 Aug;111(4):454-457
pubmed: 32592023
Health Econ Policy Law. 2016 Jan;11(1):17-38
pubmed: 25819303
BMJ. 2020 Sep 1;370:m3367
pubmed: 32873550
CMAJ. 2020 Apr 14;192(15):E420
pubmed: 32392510
Am J Public Health. 1984 Sep;74(9):979-83
pubmed: 6380323
Ann Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):555-61
pubmed: 20538199
CMAJ. 2020 Oct 26;192(43):E1311-E1312
pubmed: 33106305
CMAJ. 2020 Oct 5;192(40):E1164-E1165
pubmed: 32907821